A monk turns away from form, feeling, perception, consciousness, is free from desire for them, proceeds towards cessation, has no clinging, and abides having attained complete liberation of the mind from the influxes such a one can be defined a monk who attains nirvāṇa here and now.

The passage seems to be referring to the 5 khandha, but somehow saṅkhāra are left out.Did I misunderstand something theoretical, is this a mistake in translation/transcription, or is this a point of interest?

Any ideas?

(By the way, I wasn't sure if this was the right forum; feel free to move this if you believe that this thread belongs somewhere else)

Or is there a corresponding sutta in the Pali canon that this might refer to? Need to give a Nikaya reference (e.g. MN 10.9; SN 22.59) if it can possibly be cross referenced. There's no reference to the Nikayas on that page you linked to. And "2.078" doesn't tell us anything.

It's strange that the Tibetan and Chinese only deal with the monk who attains the taintless liberation of the mind (心正解脫) through nibbida (厭) with reference to the 5 Aggregates leading to the remainderless cessation of passion/desire? (離欲滅盡). But the Pali parallels include the speaker of the Dhamma and practising in accordance with the Dhamma. I wonder why?

A monk turns away from form, feeling, perception, consciousness, is free from desire for them, proceeds towards cessation, has no clinging, and abides having attained complete liberation of the mind from the influxes such a one can be defined a monk who attains nirvāṇa here and now.

, you will find SN 22.115-116 listed as partial parallels to SA 28, as indicated by the asterisk *.

From the front end notes on methodology -

What exactly is a parallel?We use “parallel” for variant texts that appear to be descended from a common ancestor. Often, the texts are so close that this identification is simple. Sometimes, however, there is a less close relationship between a two given texts. In such cases we indicate a “partial parallel” with an asterisk*. This doesn’t imply any particular kind of relationship between the partial parallel and the basic text. It simply suggests that if you are studying the basic text, you might want to look at the partial parallel, too. If you want to learn more about this, see our detailed discussion of methodology.

How are parallels identified?There are thousands of texts in the corpus of early Buddhist literature, and it is no trivial matter to discern what texts should be regarded as parallel. Texts often agree in many details, and disagree in others. When does a text stop being a full parallel and start being a partial parallel? And when does it become merely a text that bears certain similar features? There are no black and white answers to such questions. Rather, making these identifications draws on the accumulated learning and experience of a succession of scholars. Inevitably there will be disagreements in detail; yet in the main, there is a broad consensus as to what constitutes a parallel. Ultimately, the important point is that these identifications help the student to study and learn from related texts in diverse collections.